Details - Dhemaji District Judiciary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 came to take her back. He submits that the second party is having sufficient means to pay the maintenance in as much as he is receiving a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month from the Railway Department, while, the second party has no source of income on her own. He submits that the parents of the first party are also poor fellow and as a result of which, the first party is suffering a lot in maintaining her livelihood. He submits that the first party being the wife of the second party is legally entitled to the maintenance as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the court may be pleased to grant the same as prayed for. Apart from the oral submission, he has relied upon the decision reported in 2000 Crl.L.J. 1. 7. The learned counsel for the second party, on the other hand, submits that the first party filed the instant case without any reason whatsoever. He submits that the second party never married the first party and as such the question of providing maintenance to the first party does not arise. He submits that the second party is a married man and in this regard he has submitted the Exts. ‘Ka’ to ‘Gha’ wherein it is very much clear that the second party is having wife and children, and therefore, the contention of the first party that she is the wife of the second party is a made out story. He submits that the second party borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and perhaps, the blank paper with his signature which was taken by the first party as a security was made as the affidavit marked as Ext. 1, which also could not be proved by the first party in accordance with law. In the premises aforesaid, he submits that the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 8. Let us put the evidence on record so that it would be convenient to decide the points framed herein above. In this regard, the P.W.1 Smti. Udihsna Bsuamtary in her evidence stated that she and the second party was in love with each other and thereupon they married socially and since 28-12-2009 started living as husband and wife at Ward No.1, Rongapara in the rented house of one Chabi Rani since the second party stated her that he has no house of his own. She stated that on 31-12- 2009 an agreement was made in between them before the Notary of Sonitpur court having their joint photos in the presence of the witness Dipali Bausmatary. She stated that for conducting ‘mitir’ two persons from the family of the second party came to her house. She stated that since she was to appear B.A. examination, on 16-04-2010 the second party kept her in the house of her sister at Gogamukh and went away. She stated that till date the second party did not take her back on one pretext to the other. She stated that the second party earns a sum of Rs. 17,000/- per month and has also movable/immovable properties but she has no personal income
5 and inspite of that the second party did not provide any maintenance to her. She clarified that from the written statement of the second party she came to know that the second party is having a wife and children, which was not disclosed to her by the second party. She stated that Ext. 1 is the marriage agreement in between them wherein Exts. 1 (1) to 1 (3) are her signatures and Exts. 1 (4) to 1(6) are the signatures of the second party. She stated that Ext. 1 (7) is her photo and Ext. 1 (8) is the photo of her husband Suresh Basuamtary. In her cross-examination she stated that as the second party told him that he works as a Painter, she wrote the same in the petition filed in the court. The second party suggested that the second party never married her, to the effect that the Ext. 1 is not an admissible document, to the effect that they never lived together as husband and wife, to the effect that the second party put his signature on a blank paper for the money borrowed by him and to the effect that he is not bound to pay any maintenance to her, but, all these suggestions have been denied by the witness. 9. The P.W.2 Smti. Dipali Basumatary in her evidence stated that she knows both the parties. She stated that the parties stayed in the house of one Rajesh Mandal as husband and wife for a period of one month, which is near to her house. She stated that one day the parties went to Tezpur and performed the marriage in the court in which she was also present and put her thumb impression. She stated that as per her information the second party kept the first party in her house and did not take her back. In her cross-examination she had clarified that the first party is not related to her. The defence suggested that the second party did not stay in the rented house, to the effect that Suresh did not take her to the court nor executed the marriage agreement and to the effect that the first party and the second party are not husband-wife, but all these suggestions are denied by the witness. 10. The P.W.3 Sri. Ganesh Swargiyari in his evidence stated that he knows the parties in the case as husband and wife. He stated that on 28-12-2009 the parties after being married socially, stayed in a rented house and thereafter there was ‘mitir’ in between the parties in which he was present but at that time he was not aware about the other wife of the second party. He stated that later on, he came to know that the second party is having another wife. He stated that the family condition of the first party is not good and she presently resides with her parents. He stated that the second party is an employee of the railway department.
Page 1 and 2: 1 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGI
Page 3: 3 4. Points for determination:- 1.
Page 7 and 8: 7 12(i). In his cross-examination h
Page 9 and 10: 9 effect that the second party exec
Page 11 and 12: 1 to take the first party by giving
Page 13: 1 APPENDIX The witnesses examined a

Details - Dhemaji District Judiciary

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?